SimplyObsessed wrote:I think people got bored with the current format, it's the same cup after cup after cup. It's just like the Battle Royales, just one map..

I agree. I still signed up for this one since premium is cheap and $5 is a low investment for a potential return of an iPad. But I suspect most people that lost in the first or second rounds of the previous two aren't interested in shelling out another $5 to rack up two more losses. At the current rate of signups, it's going to take about 100 more days to fill, by which time CCV is scheduled to open.

May i suggest a new idea of having a couple of different groups.. such as:

Conqueror's Gold Cup: Must be a Lieutenant or higherConqueror's Silver Cup: Must be a Sgt first class or below

This will for sure get more people in the cups overall.

For example i knew when the conqueror's cup started that i wouldn't be participating due to some of the lesser skilled players playing like noobs and this dramatically increases the luck factor and decreases any logical skill factor.

However i finally decided to join the 3rd one just to say i did it. Well just as i figured i was basically taken out of the games due to noobs going for bonuses when the cards were worth WAAAAAYYYYY more than the bonuses, i tried moving my troops out before they killed themselves and myself at the same time. Even tried talking to them in the chat before they did it... to no avail. Well this happened in both games.

turns out i won one of the free entries into the Conqueror's Cup IV and my first game finished with the EXACT same result. Before my second round i started talking in the chat and telling people i will move my men out of the way and they just destroyed my stacks... wtf!? I am sure the same thing will happen with my second game.

Waste of time waste of money. I figured it would be like that mixing all ranks together. I know for a fact i am not the only one that stays away just because there is no logic in playing in a game like that. Its almost like making a tournament of roll the dice and if you get the highest # you win. Would for sure attract a lot more players if there was at least one separation of the players.I for one have no interest unless it changes... but i do think the Conqueror's Cup is a great idea! Hope this changes in the future and am looking forward to participating if it ever does.

However i finally decided to join the 3rd one just to say i did it. Well just as i figured i was basically taken out of the games due to noobs going for bonuses when the cards were worth WAAAAAYYYYY more than the bonuses, i tried moving my troops out before they killed themselves and myself at the same time. Even tried talking to them in the chat before they did it... to no avail. Well this happened in both games.

turns out i won one of the free entries into the Conqueror's Cup IV and my first game finished with the EXACT same result. ....

My game had the trifecta of a bonus monkey, a deadbeat and that guy who moves waaayyyy to early and sets someone else (in this case the bonus monkey) up to win the game. Fun times.

I didn't even realize it until I was automatically joined into a "Round 2" game and had to come here to figure out what had happened then went back and realized I had lost Round 1.

AndyDufresne wrote:We are looking into ways to change the format of the Conquer Cup, and will take all suggestions under advisement.

--Andy

The problem that I see with this format is that there ISN'T a direct correlation between a player's ranking and their likelihood of winning the game. This is because there are too many noobs, not enough variables to manipulate and not enough territories per player, i.e. map size is too small. My recommendations are as follows: Use World 2.1 which has more territories and bonuses per player, automatic deployment, escalating trade-ins, fog of war and unlimited reinforcements. These options will provide several more layers of in-game strategy opportunities, thus allowing the more experienced players to be able to rise to the top and win against inferior opponents more times than not. This current format feels more like checkers than chess.

However i finally decided to join the 3rd one just to say i did it. Well just as i figured i was basically taken out of the games due to noobs going for bonuses when the cards were worth WAAAAAYYYYY more than the bonuses, i tried moving my troops out before they killed themselves and myself at the same time. Even tried talking to them in the chat before they did it... to no avail. Well this happened in both games.

turns out i won one of the free entries into the Conqueror's Cup IV and my first game finished with the EXACT same result. ....

My game had the trifecta of a bonus monkey, a deadbeat and that guy who moves waaayyyy to early and sets someone else (in this case the bonus monkey) up to win the game. Fun times.

I didn't even realize it until I was automatically joined into a "Round 2" game and had to come here to figure out what had happened then went back and realized I had lost Round 1.

My experience pretty much, except minus the deadbeat.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:We are looking into ways to change the format of the Conquer Cup, and will take all suggestions under advisement.

AndyDufresne wrote:We are looking into ways to change the format of the Conquer Cup, and will take all suggestions under advisement.

--Andy

The problem that I see with this format is that there ISN'T a direct correlation between a player's ranking and their likelihood of winning the game. This is because there are too many noobs, not enough variables to manipulate and not enough territories per player, i.e. map size is too small. My recommendations are as follows: Use World 2.1 which has more territories and bonuses per player, automatic deployment, escalating trade-ins, fog of war and unlimited reinforcements. These options will provide several more layers of in-game strategy opportunities, thus allowing the more experienced players to be able to rise to the top and win against inferior opponents more times than not. This current format feels more like checkers than chess.

Why else do you think I play with similar options? Think about it. You know as well as I do that there's way too much luck involved with this current format. I agree that the round limitations would be tough to comply with but I don't see any harm in a longer tournament.

jeepnmateo wrote:Why else do you think I play with similar options? Think about it. You know as well as I do that there's way too much luck involved with this current format. I agree that the round limitations would be tough to comply with but I don't see any harm in a longer tournament.

Haha, just thought I'd call you out on it

But no, I don't see the harm in a longer tournament. I actually can't believe that they put only a 20 round limit on these games. 50, I could understand, but in the game that I was in, the guy who attacked before round 20 made a stupid attack that screwed over everybody (except the winner of course).